Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 22:34:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
387 times
|
| |
|
|
Rearranged to make points and snipped almost at whim.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> >
> > > I've even narrowed it to one small portion of the theory and
> > > one simple statement waiting for refutation - The fossil record
> > > does not support evolution.
> >
> > You claim we haven't provided evidence refuting it. Yet we have
> > discussed the wide variety of fossils, the different ages of various
> > fossils, the transitional fossils, dealt with much of the junk science
> > from these creationist resources posted, etc. etc. in an attempt
> > to satisfy this statement of yours.
>
> I've read some general statements which make huge assumptions.
> What I'm asking for is some evidence - Some simple basic evidence.
Which has been done. You don't accept it. Not our problem. But the evidence
is out there, and has been studied and researched for decades. Centuries in
some cases. Your response to any particular thing is to deny, claim
inapplicability or ignore it.
I don't think it is our job to provide you a complete regurgitation of all
of paleontology. The evidence is out there. Further, evidence from other
fields supports it as well.
As I said before:
> > The onus is on you, as the advancer of what is now (after many
> > many decades of serious science on this topic and a pretty robust
> > theory) an extraordinary claim, to provide extraordinary evidence
> > in support of creationism.
> > Further effort on our part is pointless. You just don't grok science.
> If I don't accept Darwinism, (or "macro-evolution" or whatever the
> preferred name is) how does that mean I don't "grok" science?
> Doesn't science involve repeatable and verifiable "lab tests"?
No. Science is more than labwork. You don't grok science.
> Isn't studying fossils and putting forth a theory based upon those
> fossils something more within the field of archeology than science?
No. Archeology *is* a science. You don't grok science.
And no again. studying fossils which have been proven to be far far older
than the earliest humans is not archeology. It's paleontology. You don't
grok science.
> > Or better yet, answer my question. Why persist? Why not just say
> > you accept the whole improbable mess on faith and leave it at that.
> > This thrashing around just makes you look increasingly silly, just
> > like if you were trying to prove the moon was actually made of
> > green cheese after Apollo brought rocks back.
>
> Why do you keep turning things around rather than addressing the
> issue? I've said I'm not trying to prove creation, and I've also said
> I'm not asking anyone to prove evolution. I _have_ said that I
> accept creation on faith - I'm asking that (collective) you admit
> the equivalent.
Why? I've already said I accept that some confidence in your ability to
observe things (that is, that there isn't a malevolent god playing tricks on
you) is needed. But other than that, evolution is supported by the evidence.
Literal creationism *isn't*. It's that simple.
So yes. I hereby say that I have faith that there isn't a malevolent god
that is maliciously faking the evidence and making evolution look likely
when actually it wasn't what happened. But I could be wrong.
Happy now?
> Isn't insultingly dismissing someone (or something)
> with whom you disagree the mark of a closed mind?
Indeed. That's what you're doing.
You've dismissed the work of hundreds of years by thousands (hundreds of
thousands??) of scientists because reality apparently conflicts with your
pet belief system.
My dismissal of your foolishness in doing so pales in comparision.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) And now can we finally end this "debate" (I argue that it is not in fact a debate). I rest my case that certain Christians (which seem to comprise the set of bible literalists) can not productively participate in a debate about certain aspects (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) What have I denied or claimed inapplicable? I've been presented only with some specialized snippets which I've ignored because they're based upon more foundational things which I'm asking for evidence about. Why is it (seemingly) such a (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) I've read some general statements which make huge assumptions. What I'm asking for is some evidence - Some simple basic evidence. (...) If I don't accept Darwinism, (or "macro-evolution" or whatever the preferred name is) how does that mean I (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
95 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
